Seeking Alpha

Norway loves the Model S

  • Tesla Motors (TSLA +3.3%) doubled its typical sales level in Norway during March by selling 1,493 Model S vehicles.
  • The tally is an all-time monthly record in the nation for vehicles powered by any source - gas, diesel, or electric batteries.
  • The EV automaker is wildly popular in Norway, although a government tax incentive has also helped to stoke demand.
Comments (130)
  • Altimas
    , contributor
    Comments (71) | Send Message
     
    I thought I read somewhere that demand was peaking?
    2 Apr, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • Logical Thought
    , contributor
    Comments (4205) | Send Message
     
    So let's look at Europe for Q1...

     

    January & February: Approximately 800 total

     

    March:

     

    Norway: 1493
    Spain: 2
    Netherlands: 190
    Sweden: 0
    Finland: 9
    Italy: 0

     

    We don't have France and Germany yet, but let's optimistically say France was 40 and Germany was 100 (more than those countries sold in January and February combined). In that case for the quarter we'd have 2634 in Europe while Q4 was approximately 2900. To me that sounds like "demand was peaking" but feel free to interpret it as you wish.
    2 Apr, 12:25 PM Reply Like
  • toruonu
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Well you assume you know all of them... For example Estonia registered 2, but in fact as it's pickup from Tilburg it's many more that are still in transit (two arrived today), but were paid in full in March.

     

    Also you seem to forget that Tesla is withholding a substantial amount of cars that were produced in Q1, but will be shipped to UK, China, Japan etc at the start of Q2 hence the limited production means that deliveries elsewhere have to go down (Tesla guided for substantial in-transit number for Q1 giving delivery estimate and production estimate with a difference of ~1000 cars).

     

    And I still can't understand how in the case of limited production can you draw any conclusions on demand? Tesla varies the locations that get priority month-to-month optimizing the flow and in-transit times as well as batching etc (slightly different production for EU models vs US models etc). That's why EU deliveries are almost always in cycles of 3 months with dribbles in between and this will still remain like this for a while.

     

    One has to understand that the whole point of Model S (and X) sales is to create the global infrastructure for Model E. Therefore Tesla needs to aggressively expand to new regions and build up the network and brand knowledge. If they had just wanted to show maximal Q-to-Q numbers they'd have remained in US for years still. But their "end game" is far far greater than being a niche company so they instead invest hard in global presence and that means they have to starve some regions to expand in others. So just looking at localized delivery numbers you will not find anything except Teslas priorities at that month. Norway was also starved for Jan-Feb by producing cars for US market in December followed by production for EU in Jan/Feb that got delivered in Feb-March followed again by US push in Feb-March in production and part of March with stuffing of channel for UK, China, Japan.

     

    So please, have a namesake...
    2 Apr, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • akanimo
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    "peaking" aside ... i think the second bullet point is way more important than the numbers being focused on.

     

    "The tally is an all-time monthly record in the nation for vehicles powered by any source - gas, diesel, or electric batteries"

     

    mmmmm? ... this should be worrisome to any ICE manufacturer. One of the biggest concerns for Tesla has been "will there be significant consumer demand for this product"? Just basing it on basic economic theories of price vs demand, if they are able to get this kind of consumer traction at the current levels of ASP imagine what happens as you begin to nudge that price downwards?! (even if you don't get to the mythical $35k car)
    2 Apr, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • Logical Thought
    , contributor
    Comments (4205) | Send Message
     
    Despite your complex logistical explanation, U.S. delivery waits never averaged more than 6-8 weeks that entire time and they had to cut prices in parts of Europe by a LOT more than the euro appreciation. Perhaps a more realistic explanation is that they have so few orders in various European countries that they batch them together for purposes of shipping efficiency.
    2 Apr, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    toruonu,

     

    The fallacy of your argument is shown by the collapsing lead times. There were many pull ins in the U.S. And there are reports that lead times in Norway are down to under a month.

     

    Selling such a concentrated percentage in Norway is sign of weak demand, not strong demand. No one disputes that Norway had a sizable backlog. The question is what is happening to demand in normal places where the government isn't trying to effectively buy the citizens a car. And the fact that Tesla had to sell so many in Norway shows its tepid elsewhere. Which of course is why Tesla cut the price in February.

     

    This whole argument of global allocation is specious. I don't even know why Tesla bulls are holding on to it. Why not just say that demand was softer during the winter, but it will come back.

     

    Its so odd that Tesla clings to an argument that isn't defensible.
    2 Apr, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • tech01x
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    For Q4 2013, according to http://bit.ly/QFVt5T, Tesla Model S sales in Europe was 2604 vehicles.

     

    Your number for Sweden is definitely wrong, it's 34 for Q1 and 26 for March.

     

    http://bit.ly/QFVt5X

     

    So far, an incomplete assessment of Q1 2014 European Model S sales has:
    859 through February 2014
    1493 Norway
    34 Sweden
    190 Netherlands
    9 Finland
    2 Spain

     

    That's 2,587. 2,604 - 2,587 = 17 cars.

     

    That's with a tremendous push to move Dutch orders ahead into 2013 before the expiration of a tax incentive.
    2 Apr, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    One of the real questions that bulls and bears should discuss is can this car succeed where there are not major subsidies? And if the answer is that its lukewarm, what is the future for major subsidies outside of Norway and California?

     

    Plainly, subsidies are the leading indicator of demand. So what is the leading indicator of subsidies being adopted, increased or eliminated?
    I don't know the answer to that question myself, but thats where I will focus.
    2 Apr, 01:09 PM Reply Like
  • User 7369811
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, I may not agree with subsidizing luxury cars for the 1% but I don't doubt for one second that governments will continue to offer them. If there are indications that more European governments are going to dramatically increase subsidies, then that definitely has to be factored in.
    2 Apr, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (990) | Send Message
     
    Here I was thinking Belgium and Switzerland were in Europe. All indications are that Germany did over 200 in March.

     

    But all that misses the point. Close to 1000 of the Q4 sales came off the backlog. Those are orders that had been accumulated over a period stretching almost three years. The 2900 number in q4 2013 was not an accurate indicator of demand. The q1 2014 number on the other hand is. And it indicates that demand is increasing
    2 Apr, 01:27 PM Reply Like
  • akanimo
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    I totally agree that "subsidies are the leading indicator of demand".

     

    That being said I think the best "subsidy" would be Tesla being able to rein in the cost price through scaled production. Its becoming more and more obvious that the main impediment at this point is cost (everything else seems to have been addressed: safety, operating costs, recharging [locations/time], desirability, etc)

     

    Cost seems to be the last tipping point to mass market adoption
    2 Apr, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    @Tippydog
    I am not sure if longer term it is the incentive that matters or the price? In California, for example, I think it is an extra $5k off. If the incentive goes away but Tesla drops the price $5k from streamlining manufacturing, does it sell in similar numbers or is it a psychological thing to have the incentive?
    2 Apr, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • omarbradley
    , contributor
    Comments (966) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/1ecEvRt

     

    appears they're selling their 500 a week in Norway alone. "Once you throw in the entire North Atlantic Treaty Organization" it would appears sales are looking pretty good going forward as well.

     

    Thank God for the Treasury Secretary bailing out on GM this past December...yes, yes?

     

    By all means keep shorting but this has been Government business since day one.

     

    Elon does have the ambition of launching rockets on a weekly basis btw. I do believe one of our satellites has just finished paying a visit to a "planetary sized asteroid" as is departing for the largest one in our Solar System.
    2 Apr, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    So LT, are you saying Tesla won't make its global guidance for Q1 or what?
    2 Apr, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Pavlof
    , contributor
    Comments (134) | Send Message
     
    Mark, How's that short position treating you and your clients?
    2 Apr, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • 9305241
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Tesla may have 12000 vehicles sold in 1st quarter.
    So what?
    2 Apr, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • Rik1381
    , contributor
    Comments (1420) | Send Message
     
    In California, there is a rebate for EV purchases of $2500.

     

    There is also a $7500 federal tax credit that is available everywhere in the US.

     

    California does not have an EV rebate/credit incentive that is massively larger than all other states, like Norway has compared to all other nations in Europe. I'm not sure why some SAers conflate the incentives in California and Norway.

     

    Colorado has a $6000 state tax credit for EV purchases, worth more than twice as much as the California EV rebate.

     

    Georgia has a $5000 state tax credit for EV purchases, worth twice as much as the California EV rebate.

     

    Illinois has a $4000 state rebate for EV purchases, worth $1500 more than the California rebate.

     

    Pennsylvania has a $3000 state rebate for EV purchases, worth $500 more than the California rebate.

     

    New Jersey and Washington state have no sales tax on EV purchases. I paid $8015 in California sales tax on my Model S, which is substantially more than the $2500 California rebate. A sales tax exemption like New Jersey and Washington have would have been a much bigger $$ incentive.
    2 Apr, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    double E.

     

    'Those are orders that had been accumulated over a period stretching almost three years. The 2900 number in q4 2013 was not an accurate indicator of demand. '

     

    But Q-1 deliveries also come off of backlog, right? I mean, we could see that from the forum as the VINS were issued in the 4th quarter and delivery dates were scheduled for the 1st quarter.

     

    Demand built up over 3 years. Surely you are not saying that q-4 sales fully fulfilled all built up backlog? A single quarter of sales fulfilled 3 years of demand, is that your view?
    2 Apr, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    akanimo,

     

    I agree. Cost is the big problem. The gap between other producers' cost, and Tesla's cost is too high. Resulting in Tesla's price having to be too high to hit a high volume market. Nissan's cost, and price, for example, is far lower. The gap between them is just big too even though there remains a performance gap.

     

    And when you factor in that other companies can subsidize their EVs with profit from their mature ICE lines, then the effective cost gap is even higher. This is the structural challenge for Tesla which nothing can solve. A giga factory won't put a dent in that structural disadvantage. Other companies can sell cars at zero margin. They won't like it, but they can and will do so if necessary.

     

    Moreover, the innovative nature of this management causes the company no not be optimized for cost reduction. There is no one who could look at the 60 Minutes segment, for example, and say "this engineering team is the right culture for the plodding, dull work of incremental cost reduction."

     

    Instead it always goes for the grandiose. Thats the entrepreneurial impulse. And in this case its a liability. The early announcement, the bold move. I have battery issue, so I will go huge an build a giant factory. Thats the instinct. But its not the right move for an auto company in long war.

     

    I remember working with a hot computer company once that couldn't get enough DRAM and its growth was constrained as a result. The CEO stated "we are going to build our own DRAM Fab." They had a very strong CFO, and it came to their senses before this disaster happened.

     

    Here, TEsla did not stop in time. And that bold move into batteries is a blunder. I am keenly focused on the quality of financial management here, the strength of a CFO and board to stand up to the entrepreneurial impulse. And I find it lacking.
    2 Apr, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • acalixte
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    You are not account for the more than 500 delivered in Norway in February and whatever may have been delivered in Norway in January.
    2 Apr, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (990) | Send Message
     
    @TippyDog

     

    I am referring to the backlog that was built before the car was even available in Europe. Some of it was even built before the car was in production. Reservations for the model S opened in 2010.

     

    European deliveries started in Q3 2013. The initial backlog was not cleared up till early q4 2013.
    2 Apr, 02:27 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Toru...finally someone gets it!
    LT still thinks the world's safest vehicle, with the fastest acceleration (for the price - beats more expensive BMW M5 0-100mph), with the most storage space in its class, with the lowest operating and maintenance costs (by far when compared to other premium ICE vehicles), that also just happens to offer FREE long distance fuel has a "demand problem".
    Yes very Logical.

     

    Porsche sells more than 150,000 inferior ICE vehicles every year LT..then add the inferior high end Mercedes, BMW's, Lexus, etc ...It will be a LOOONG time before Tesla ever has a demand issue as thousands of people everyday are waking up to the superiority of electric drive. Thinking demand is going to dip when we are right at the beginning of the mass awareness and adoption curve isn't smart.

     

    Face it the major automakers appear to have no interest in making a long range EV to compete with Tesla. How do we know this? No plans for their own battery Giga factories as of yet.
    Therefore Tesla is already the Rolls Royce of the EV world and are quickly becoming the Porsche of the EV world, and then BMW.
    Quality and brand remain top notch while production expands. Their sole focus on the EV while the majors continue to diversify between gas, hybrid, hydrogen, Nat gas, diesel, ethanol, air, BEV, etc, etc means that Tesla is already effectively spending more on pure BEV R&D than anyone else (maybe only Nissan comes close)...soon they will rocket away with the Giga factory never looking back.
    The pain will continue for the shorts until they get this.
    2 Apr, 02:37 PM Reply Like
  • toruonu
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Where do you take the 1-2 month delivery wait times? The only actual facts that I know of is the Q1 delivery tracker thread on TMC where the average for US deliveries seems to be 90-100 days (3+ months). If the cars are delivered in Q1 at all, some got pushed to Q2 as well (even though ordered in 2013 and not December). The latter part of the Q1 the deliveries got pushed down to 6-8 week period with some occasional exceptions who got their P85+ cars in California in just a couple of weeks. It may well have been a lucky happenstance that the person ordered just as Tesla was producing exact batch of color and options soon after and as it's a local delivery they sometimes do pull those forward especially in end of quarter months, but those are really rare. Those who recorded their entries in Q4 2013 with estimates in Q1 were all seeing far longer delivery times, which does go together with my theory that regions are batched and beginning of quarter is more EU production and end of quarter is US production with a smooth slide between them.
    2 Apr, 02:45 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Yes Tesla breaks yet another sales record and the bears turn it into bad news somehow. Incredible. Read my first post here for some insight.
    2 Apr, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Wouldn't trust any of the numbers that LT or Tippy seem to think they know somehow for one second. LT has a huge short position which he has admitted many times.
    p.s. I am not long Tesla.
    2 Apr, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • RussellL
    , contributor
    Comments (284) | Send Message
     
    LT wrote in another thread:
    http://bit.ly/Pk4nVp

     

    "...you can just have it done at the 100,000-mile mark, at the same time you have to shell out $20,000 for the replacement battery so you're not driving a car with at least 20% less range."

     

    Can you provide a source for your 20% less range claim?
    People have asked you for it but you have yet to provide it.
    2 Apr, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    It is smart for countries to subsidize the EV.
    Economic powerhouses like Germany, Japan, France, Korea, etc import over 95% of their oil and petroleum needs. The savings for the economy by displacing foreign oil and gasoline for DOMESTIC electricity producing DOMESTIC jobs far outweigh the costs of the subsidy.

     

    Similarly it makes sense for oil producing nations like Norway to subsidize the EV. Oil is a finite resource whose price is rising. It makes sense to use less domestically and export more.

     

    As the people wake up to all these economic benefits you can expect subsidies to increase..at least in places where the oil lobby hasn't corrupted the politicians.
    2 Apr, 03:06 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Sorry LT forgot to add most loved car by consumer reports to my list of why demand must be falling for Tesla. Again sorry about that.
    2 Apr, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    "Its so odd that Tesla clings to an argument that isn't defensible. "

     

    If that is true, then the Mar 14 quarter will look good and the Tesla enthusiasts will bid up the price again. This is a good time to clear out the shorts and puts and then get back in after the bubble people have another run at it later this month. If the signs we are seeing are correct, then we will see a real collapse in sales by the June 14 results.

     

    Musk is a master at hype, but he has a house of cards he is trying to hold together. How much longer can he play the giga-factory shell game without Panasonic on board? There are only so many times he can get on 60 Minutes with a fawning love-fest.
    2 Apr, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • Dave_M
    , contributor
    Comments (2610) | Send Message
     
    What? No sales to Slovenia? Tesla is definitely in a slump.
    I can hear Cramer saying Sell, Sell, Sell :)
    Let the shorts rejoice.

     

    Here's what's really important:
    - The rate of production for Model S continues to increase. And every car coming off the production line is "still" pre-sold. There is "still" no new car inventory for Model S.

     

    Pinch me when:
    - Model S production declines, or when
    - Brand new Model S cars are sitting in a showroom parking lot waiting for someone to purchase them.

     

    Until then, all this talk about "peak demand" is FUD.
    2 Apr, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    "... Tesla being able to rein in the cost price through scaled production."

     

    Therein lies a problem. They have basically a free factory. I bet they are already high on the automation scale with the bodies. The big cost item is the battery assembly. They are already getting the individual toothbrush battery cells at commodity prices. Having to solder 7000 of these together is going to have its inefficiencies. I doubt there is an opportunity for near-term, major cost reduction on the assembly of that pack. Hence the vision / dream / hallucination (take your pick) of a factory that , without any experienced partners or stable source of raw materials, purports to drive a major cost reduction in the individual cells, while at the same time acknowledging that you can't even stay on the commodity cell path anyway because you have to move to more exotic technologies like lithium air ...

     

    They aren't going to get much out of economy of scale. They are ALREADY at scale. They aren't talking about economy of scale. They are talking about replicating factories, which doesn't yield economies of scale.
    2 Apr, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • Dave_M
    , contributor
    Comments (2610) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee - "Having to solder 7000 of these together is going to have its inefficiencies."

     

    You know, I heard about these things called robots . . .
    2 Apr, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Wrong wrong wrong Tippy.
    Without a Giga factory auto companies cannot build long range EV's in any significant numbers.
    A long range 200+ mile EV uses 3 times more battery than a Nissan Leaf, 5-6 times more than a Chevy Volt, and 12-15 times more than a plug-in Pruis.

     

    Nissan has the largest internal battery factory at the moment capable of producing enough battery for 200,000 Leaf's/year (when at full capacity).
    So if Nissan totally ditched the mid range battery Leaf for a long range Tesla competitor they might have enough battery for 60-70k vehicles per year.

     

    Think about it Tesla ALONE is going to be producing more lithium ion batteries than the entire world produced in 2013.
    Now lets just imagine that Ford, Nissan, GM, Toyota, Chrysler, etc, etc plan to compete with Tesla by producing a similar number of long range EV's by 2017 and beyond.
    Well it is pretty obvious then that they better start building their own battery Giga factories NOW if they plan on doing this.
    Otherwise big auto will be forced to bid against each other on the open market for their Giga battery needs - and Panasonic, Samsung, LG, etc will take full advantage of that massive spike in demand by raising prices.

     

    It all boils down to Tesla having dramatically lower per kWh battery prices than anyone else in the EV game...and that really is the name of the game if you haven't figured it out yet.
    It is a good time to go long lithium guys.
    2 Apr, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (3189) | Send Message
     
    Model S is not intended to be a low cost entry vehicle. That's why there's going to be a Gen III. And if you listen to the company instead of coming up with your own story you will discover that they've had problems with differences in the electrical standards across Europe so that at-home charging has become more of a problem than they expected.

     

    But the company really just entered Europe and there is still a lot of infrastructure to be built out. You should expect to see uneven progress and localized problems for some time to come. Take comfort in the fact that the company is not trying to whitewash its problems and present an overly rosy picture.
    2 Apr, 03:40 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Tippy wrote: "Instead it always goes for the grandiose. Thats the entrepreneurial impulse. And in this case its a liability. The early announcement, the bold move. I have battery issue, so I will go huge an build a giant factory. Thats the instinct. But its not the right move for an auto company in long war. "

     

    I agree with your views about cost management. I don't necessarily agree with the statement that it is a liability.

     

    As I see it, there is no scenario, even with the most aggressive cost cutters, where Tesla could produce a product for the mainstream market today or for the next 2 years for that matter. And really, it might be 5 years before they could get close to the mainstream market. They made the decision to go all in with EV power without a range extender. The result is that they are possibly 5 years ahead of the technology.

     

    If you will grant that premise, then the question is how can you keep the company in business for such a long stretch of time? The only answer, really, is to put on a Barnum&Bailey circus act for the public and to try to keep the balloon inflated with irrational hopes. That's a tall order, but I don't see that Musk has much alternative unless he will reconsider a range extender.

     

    I doubt that he will because he is pretty pig-headed. But think about it. The difference between 60 and 85 kwh is a product cost of about $15,000 and about 300 pounds. Instead of that extra 25 kwh, they could easily have included a small range extended engine and fuel tank. That would probably cost $3000 at the very high end. And for that matter, they could drop the basic pack down to 40 kwh and save another $10K in product cost. Had they done this, they would be blowing away the Volt and Leaf, even with a selling price of $65K, and they would have a clear transition path to the days if/when battery technology allows a pure EV solution for the mainstream customer.

     

    But that kind of pragmatic decision is not who Musk is. So bring on the elephants, tigers, and tight rope walkers. The circus is here for awhile.
    2 Apr, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (3189) | Send Message
     
    No, by June 14 we will be looking at early delivery numbers out of China. Don't expect to see a "collapse" any time soon because demand remains as strong as ever.
    2 Apr, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Have you heard the expression "round peg in a square hole?" that is, literally what this package is physically. It is extremely heavy and takes up an extraordinary amount of space. And you are paying for all that extra packaging at the individual cell level. That's OK for notebook computers that might use 6 cells. A system of 7000 of these is far from what anybody could call an elegant or efficient solution.
    2 Apr, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Exactly...call me when production rates fall or Tesla starts laying off workers instead of hiring at a frantic pace.
    You are clutching at straws LT. Go look at some real data.
    2 Apr, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • murdock101
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    logical thought,
    i'm a rabid Tesla fanboy and have been since the stock was in the 20's and the production Model S was just a twinkle in the eye of von Holzhausen et al.
    Naturally i've bumped into your commentary on the company regularly for almost as long. I've never really agreed with you but almost always read your thoughts with respect and interest because you are an experienced investor and i'm not....at all! However, i have NEVER read a single case where you have admitted you have been wrong about Tesla. All you seem to do is move the bar higher and higher and then proclaim that Tesla won't jump over that bar....and are therefore failures. I've lost respect for your "thoughts" as a result.
    I don't blame you for thinking Tesla is overvalued...any moment the market is even slightly bearish Tesla will and does plummet. You, however, constantly make points that are simply untrue...or are proven false by the company....yet you never admit it. I think you keep guessing wrong on Tesla and other innovative companies because you can't admit your own blind spots.
    2 Apr, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Yes cpar I am sure you have just as a intimate knowledge of the battery business and its supply chain as does Elon Musk and his best in the biz engineers and battery scientists. Please give it a rest.
    p.s. Tesla can and will source everything it needs to make batteries from North America (mostly from the Western States and Canada). This will cut transport costs dramatically over other battery producers.
    Integration like this has never been done before in the battery biz. Every aspect will be looked at and cost minimized on massive volume.
    2 Apr, 05:08 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    teddy,

     

    Going more asset heavy is a burden for a company that must be continue to be fast. Its really unfortunate for the Tesla business model if heavy duty vertical integration is required. It would be like Apple deciding they have to open a factory in Nevada to build their own DRAMS or graphics controllers.

     

    Maybe its necessary, but you would sure hope not. Committing to a single cell technology increases assets, reduces flexibility of design, reduces ROIC, and adds huge execution risk.

     

    Over time, asset light businesses become more valuable than asset heavy businesses. Compare Qualcomm to Texas Instruments. Compare ARM to Samsung.

     

    Tesla enjoys a membership in the momentum club. But that membership is renewed year by year, its not perpetual. Business model is reviewed with each extention.
    2 Apr, 06:39 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Rik,

     

    Thats a helpful summary. I believe a bill was introduced in Georgia to limit the incentive. I don't know what he future is in New Jersey.

     

    I have no sense whether this kind of taxpayer burden is increasing or declining over time. I doubt there is another Norway on the horizon, no matter what the trend.
    2 Apr, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • brekkie4dinner
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Does anyone know - wot r the size/types of EV subsidies in Europe?

     

    I believe the US subsidy is a one-time tax credit of about 10% of base cost, say, $6,500, pre tax equiv, ˜$13,000.

     

    Is it reasonable to say that "[$6,500] subsidies are the leading indicator of demand" on a $90k vehicle with a 2-4 yr average life/trade in?
    2 Apr, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • SFC Mohn
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    I agree with your statement, this is a new and inovative piece of equipment and sales approach. The ICE companies have had the technology offered to them and few have accepted it . It is easier to stand back and say it wont work rather than work to make it a success. Musk has the technology and bank roll and incentive to make it work. If he is as driven as irt appears you wont stop him or his efforts. He is the Henry Ford of this time. When Ford didn't have the materials he needed to produce his cars he made it himself, when ,in his time , it was said his cars were to expensive he sold them for less than he could build them. And when the raw materials were'nt available he went where the materials were and refined them to provide for the needs of his dreams. We need to remember a little of the history behind those who became successful by going to extremes to put their product out there for general consumption. Look to the past to see the future.
    2 Apr, 08:26 PM Reply Like
  • joeinslw@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comments (563) | Send Message
     
    Hey Tippy, I assume you don't have any problem with a Hybrid getting a Government Subsidy? Funny about that, the Prius gets a subsidy, along with many other hybrids but you have a problem with only Tesla cars getting them...interesting.
    Maybe your like the others trying to make a killing shorting the stock. Well like I told so many others, your on the wrong side if you are, the stock went UP over 13 points today, sorry but if you are shorting the stock you just another looser.
    2 Apr, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    Tech,

     

    "That's with a tremendous push to move Dutch orders ahead into 2013 before the expiration of a tax incentive"

     

    Its so amusing how the Tesla defenders always acknowledge months later that the sales were aberrational. The growth last year in the U.S. was due to the built up backlog, so we shouldn't look at the current decline. The growth in Europe in the 4th quarter is now due to expiration of the Holland tax incentive. So we shouldn't look at the collapse in Holland. No one will acknowledge these issues when they are actually happening.

     

    But more important, can't everyone see that sales spikes are all caused by taxpayer largesse. Norway, Holland, California. Georgia.

     

    When is this company going to show a single success not funded by the taxpayer? Ever? Is this whole story a bet on government intervention?

     

    Ok, Tesla achieved flat. Down in the U.S and flat in Europe. Thats your big momentum story? Flat, with a big self-congratulation. Big whoopee.

     

    What other momentum stock is celebrating flat. Not Netflix, not Facebook.. I can't think of one. "We're flat, but we are going big asset purchase, deep industrial model, no recurring revenue, please buy our stock."

     

    Its so ridiculous. This company better hope for government action. More QE, more subsidies, more garbage.
    2 Apr, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Tippy wrote: " Committing to a single cell technology increases assets, reduces flexibility of design, reduces ROIC, and adds huge execution risk. "

     

    Moreover, Musk just glosses over the idea that in order to get the energy densities an automotive application needs, he will have to move to more exotic chemistry, such as Lithium-air, which is a nonsensical proposition in the context of individual commodity cells such as are used with electric toothbrushes.

     

    He continuously talks out of both sides of his mouth yet this Pied Piper has quite a parade of followers that never ask the most basic questions.

     

    So which is it? Is Tesla going to achieve breakthrough improvements just by scaling up the factory size, still building commodity-type products that will help amortize the factory cost? Or is Tesla going to pursue more advanced, less commodity-level battery technology, undermining the very argument he is making for the factory? My guess is that Panasonic is not at all satisfied with the slippery answers they are getting to these questions. I mean, I don't think my electric shaver is going to have Lithium-air cells any time soon. I don't mind an extra half ounce of weight when I am shaving. So really, what is the business proposition to Panasonic that would make them want to give up $3 billion and hand over their best intellectual property to their partner, Tesla?
    3 Apr, 01:22 AM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Tippy I don't think you comprehend just how much battery is needed here to make long range BEV's in any real numbers.
    If Tesla doesn't do it, nobody else will because nobody seems to believe in the long range EV mission right now.
    So Tesla builds a giga factory capable of supplying 500,000 LRBEV's.
    They will have the lowest per kWh price by such a margin that nobody else will be able to compete.
    Big auto will be stuck waiting around for the holy grail - some massively more powerful, lighter, cheaper form of energy storage...good luck.

     

    If something new does come along the chances that they tick all the above boxes right out of the gate is quite unlikely. Technology has to scale very well and supply chains must be streamlined.
    For example look at the price premium AA lithium batteries still command over older alkaline AA batteries next time you are at the supermarket, and that is with 25 years of lithium battery production!
    Point is new/improved energy storage tech is seldom cheaper than old...in fact it never has been!

     

    No...gradual improvements in lithium ion tech is the most likely way forward. Tesla is heading in the right direction.

     

    And even if some new tech comes along. Tesla, as the world's biggest battery maker/ EV company (by 2017) will be in the best position to buy that technology and either upgrade the gigafactory to the new tech or build a new giga factory while continuing to use the older giga factory for less expensive EV's.
    Think of it like BMW's models...the 3 series might get the older lithium ion batteries...the 5-7 series vehicles might get the new lithium-air batteries (or whatever the new tech might be).

     

    My premise above holds true. If the other auto manufactuers want to challenge Tesla in the long range BEV market they better start on their own giga factories now...otherwise they will be stuck paying top dollar to Panasonic, Samsung, or LG for their batteries. This will leave them uncompetitive when compared to Tesla's Gen III which will have true FREE long range capability with the supercharger network (which will blanket the entire developed world by 2017).

     

    Tesla has it right...sorry Tippy.
    3 Apr, 01:42 AM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Forget Panasonic if they don't want to be on board. They will only lose their single biggest battery customer which is Tesla and soon to be SolarCity.
    Crossing Musk is a very bad idea for Panasonic.
    Tesla/Solar City doesn't need them...they have enough talent and knowledge of the battery business in house to get the job done. Musk has actually proven that thinking outside the standard "big business" box is a better way to do business anyway.
    The market has also shown they are happy to provide Musk with the capital he needs to get the job done.
    He could start another company for the Giga-factory...call it "Tesla Energy Storage Systems" who will sell batteries cheap to Tesla and SolarCity but at a premium to the rest of the industry (as others still won't be able to get batteries any cheaper from anyone else - unless they happen to build their own giga-factories, which is my whole point here).

     

    Giga factories are coming...this cannot be avoided. I say scoop up lithium stocks now on the cheap and stop focusing on Tesla and other mo-mo stocks that have already exploded. Skate to where the puck will be, not to where it is now.
    3 Apr, 02:11 AM Reply Like
  • Dave_M
    , contributor
    Comments (2610) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee - "The difference between 60 and 85 kwh is a product cost of about $15,000 and about 300 pounds. Instead of that extra 25 kwh, they could easily have included a small range extended engine and fuel tank. That would probably cost $3000 at the very high end. And for that matter, they could drop the basic pack down to 40 kwh and save another $10K in product cost. Had they done this, they would be blowing away the Volt and Leaf, "

     

    What you have just described is (pretty much) the BMW i3 design. The i3 has an 80 - 90 mile electric range, backed up by an optional gasoline generator (motorcycle engine). With a 2.4 gallon gas tank. That BMW design concept will cost you $45K - $50K. I reserved my judgement until I saw one in person. Now that I have seen one, it's quite ugly. Almost like BMW purposefully made it ugly. Let's see how they sell.

     

    What you are not understanding is that the Tesla customer "doesn't want a gasoline engine" (big, small, or in between). They don't need one either, because their "range extender" is the free supercharger network. Other auto makers "have" to consider range extenders in EVs, because they are building crippled EVs. A range extender is a band-aid solution to a limited range EV.
    3 Apr, 06:43 AM Reply Like
  • tech01x
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    Tippy,

     

    The allocation of sales is aberrational. Further, the macro environment that Tesla finds itself in was created before Tesla and exists without Tesla. Matter of fact, many of the incentives were created without Tesla in mind at all. If the other vehicle manufacturers were like Nissan, there would be more competition in the BEV market. As an investor, one cannot ignore the macro environment that the companies exist within. There are plenty of subsidies and tax credits and other government interventions in every industry. Should your power utility discount the fact that the U.S. government underwrites the nuclear power industry insurance with a legislative cap? That factored into your power bill. Or should a trucking company factor in highway maintenance because the state provides mostly free roads or it wouldn't be fair to railways?

     

    Tesla achieved flat only in the sense that they achieved higher sales as restricted by the steadily increasing production. That's what I've been saying - they are production constrained. This entire bear reasoning that demand has collapsed is ridiculous.
    3 Apr, 07:33 AM Reply Like
  • erics2112
    , contributor
    Comments (26) | Send Message
     
    I don't think that they solder the batteries together. Rather, I think that they use pre-formed modules that hold the batteries in place (like everything else that uses batteries) under compression to maintain the contacts. Then, these are tied together in the battery pack via connectors. Minimal soldering!
    3 Apr, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    They would use robotic spot welders I would imagine. This is doing it by hand.
    http://bit.ly/1kvurqD
    3 Apr, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • tech01x
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    LT, it looks like Europe is higher in Q1 2014 than Q4 2013:

     

    The EV sales blog has 2604 Model S sales for all of Europe in Q4 2013.

     

    Right now, the incomplete data looks like this:
    Norway 1493
    Sweden 34
    Netherlands 190
    Finland 9
    Spain 2
    Italy 11
    France 25
    Germany 143
    Jan & Feb Q1 859

     

    The total so far is 2,766 which is higher than 2604. There are several countries we have yet to see any data, so the total is going to be even higher. If Tesla managed to deliver the same number as they are expected to produce during Q1 (7,400), then 7,400 - 2,766 = 4,634 which is lower than the U.S./Canada deliveries in Q2, 2013 which does not mean that U.S./Canada has lower demand. Just merely that Tesla allocated more cars to Europe. A movement of 2 weeks of production from one geography to another means roughly 1,400 cars, so the end effect on waiting time is hard to see (6-9 weeks from order confirmation to delivery for the U.S.).

     

    Of course, this could be a local peak as next quarter, there are roughly 8,000 cars to spread across more markets.
    7 Apr, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • gen3
    , contributor
    Comments (296) | Send Message
     
    There is no real supply for Europe yet and the UK needs Right Hand Drive
    which puts it in a supply conflict with Hong Kong and Australia.
    The GEN III will be so massive in France TESLA will need to seriously think about a plant maybe next door in Belgium or in Spain. If French Gov has the sense to offer good incentives it could be inside France itself.
    A these articles about demand peaking is total crap. People say in the USA that TESLA has run out of rich people....utter rubbish ! There are 130,000 American households worth 25 million and above and about nine million households that could easily buy a TESLA. You have idiots like Lady Gaga driving around in a $160,000 BMW and Jennifer "bimbo" Lopez driving around in a $250,000 Bentley. Buying a TESLA should be mandatory but celebrities set a good example you vain idiots !
    10 Apr, 07:52 AM Reply Like
  • Ecp54321
    , contributor
    Comments (182) | Send Message
     
    Many bears will spread FUD to make people think that. The truth is Tesla is supply constrained and will be for many years to come despite the making steps to ramp up production/supply as fast as they can.
    2 Apr, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Logical Thought
    , contributor
    Comments (4205) | Send Message
     
    Yes, that must be why they cut prices by 10% in Germany and U.S. delivery times are averaging just six weeks (and were actually much quicker in March, when they were trying to "make the quarter." Whatever you do, please don't let facts get in the way of your theory!
    2 Apr, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Norway has a freaking $134,000 tax break for each S sold. The tax break is more than the price of the car. http://bit.ly/1j8AvJd

     

    Take away that anomaly and the sales in Europe rounds to approximately ZERO.

     

    And where do you see evidence of a supply constraint? Everywhere I look I see the delivery time down under a month in the US. There is basically no backlog at all now.
    2 Apr, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • Stephen Pace
    , contributor
    Comments (409) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee: Minor quibble, but actually the Model S is approximately the same price as in the US adjusted for transportation and fees. It is really that gas cars in Norway suffer a tax penalty while EVs are untaxed. True, they get other benefits like free tolls, parking, and ferries, but it shows that Norway incentives for EVs are working as planned (actually, even better than they had planned). When they first created the programs, they thought that 50k vehicles was going to be a decade+ stretch, but they now see they'll get there much faster than they originally thought.
    2 Apr, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    Stephen, what happens in Norway after they spend all that money and get to 50,000.

     

    Does Norway exhaust the subsidy before Tesla sees its first dollar of profit?
    My guess is yes.
    2 Apr, 01:10 PM Reply Like
  • User 7369811
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    I had no idea it was that high. That is...wow...absurd.
    2 Apr, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • tech01x
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    cparmerlee,

     

    Ah, there are plenty of people waiting more than a month for a Model S. Just because some people are getting their cars under a month doesn't mean that everyone is getting their cars in under a month. Roughly 6-9 weeks currently normal for a U.S. delivery at the end of Q1. The other issue is that the delivery rate is not the same across the quarter - usually order to delivery times are shorter as we approach the end of the quarter.

     

    Also, you can't take away Norway sales, because they are still sales. A sale to Norway means a sale can't be done somewhere else. I think the math escapes you. If there are X number of cars made that are available for delivery, and some number Y cars delivered to a particular geography, then only X-Y=Z cars are available for delivery elsewhere. You can't remove the Y cars from consideration and balance the equation and so you can't conclude that Z would be the same if you remove Y. You have zero visibility to what would happen to Z if Y was 0. No control in your experiment.

     

    The Tesla factory is making somewhere roughly north of 600 cars a week. They can't make more, so you don't have a situation where you have a practically infinite supply of product for which to determine demand. In this case, practically infinite supply has to be sufficiently greater than demand so that customers orders can be fulfilled essentially right away. If, for example, there was a channel for there to be a channel inventory and there was say, 8 weeks of channel inventory at normal sales levels, then you can talk about demand during the quarter.

     

    Therefore, as long as the company is selling practically every car they can that they produce acknowledging that there is some slop due to delivery timing differences at the end and beginning of each quarter and to different geographies, then the only evidence of demand we can look at is customer orders. In that metric, the last time we saw it had a significant increase sequentially from quarter to quarter. While that number does include Model X reservations, it does not provide any direct evidence of a collapse in demand.
    2 Apr, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • From an European point of view
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    By the way , here in Belgium , I will have to wait October for a BMW i3 to be delivered if ordered today .
    That is a so called "production constraint" . And the reason is that BMW , although it experienced a great start remains cautious about EV with or without extenders.
    2 Apr, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • toruonu
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    They cut the price in all EUR currency countries and that balanced the price increase a quarter earlier. My guess would be that they conservatively estimated the EUR to lose more value and hence priced the cars higher than the going rate would have demanded (and hid the increase nicely by splitting up the options). Then as the EUR instead strengthened they saw that they had overcorrected and re-evaluated. The correction of price was not 10%, but more in line of 5-7% nicely correcting the ~3-4% increase in ~October plus the EUR/USD moves in between.

     

    Tesla has always gamed the deliveries in the global scale. Early quarter production is for furthest region (EUR mainland, then followed by Norway and Switzerland) resulting in ~3-4 month waits for US customers. Then as the EU allotment is done and shipped they accelerate the US shipments and try to time it as well in such a way that furthest away states are produced first if possible and then the end of quarter is given almost exclusively to California and Fremont pickup because of the short turnaround time from production finish to handover.

     

    And this is absolutely logical in a production constrained system. This way the production rate remains at what it is yet you will get cars everywhere during the quarter instead of varying it around due to the shipping times. Yes, they could just switch to a fluent production, but it would kill one quarter at the very least. And considering how young the company is and what kind of crap you guys are spreading on far less news, then stuffing the pipeline and averaging out the shipments would cause a drop in number of delivered cars in a quarter. They're trying to take the first blow of this in Q1 2014 where they will produce and send off cars to new regions meaning that about 15% of total production will be in transit at end of quarter and I can almost bet that you guys will all run with the headlines of Tesla demand dropping because deliveries in Q1 2014 are below Q4 2013 no matter that Tesla guided for it and said why it's going to be like this. They'll probably try to balance off the EU shipments etc over time as well to make it less wavy, but right now with the vultures circling for scraps to use for FUD they keep engineering the shipment orders.

     

    Also, unlike most car companies Tesla doesn't have model years, instead the cars get new features every quarter (average time between new features seems to be a quarter) meaning that they really want to refresh their showroom cars about once a quarter. So why not sell all the showroom cars in the last month of a quarter and pull in new productions that arrive early in the new quarter or use cancellations or what not for it. This keeps the showrooms fresh with new features and at the same time gives a minority of people the option to get a car immediately. There are always people who want that. Hence the push at end of quarter to clean out inventory cars.

     

    You really need to use better facts and theories for your FUD spreading. And you should stop shorting, it'll allow you to return to thinking logically instead of trying to reason away your short position even if it doesn't work.
    2 Apr, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • toruonu
    , contributor
    Comments (56) | Send Message
     
    Tesla is making a ton of profit already. The delaying of lease accounting is a stupid argument because it just delays todays income to a future date because I hardly think that most people would use the residual value guarantee and even if they did Tesla can easily turn the cars around and sell for a profit. Therefore putting all lease accounting residual value as earnings in 3 years skews the GAAP numbers abnormally. What really matters is cash flow. And Tesla is running a net positive cash flow even while they are investing massive cap ex into expansion as well as loads of funds to R&D. The theoretical liability in the future doesn't really exist and if that's your only argument to claiming Tesla isn't profitable, then it's a very weak argument. Or do you have a better one?
    2 Apr, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    "I had no idea it was that high. That is...wow...absurd."

     

    Let me tell you what absurd is. Absurd is extrapolating from numbers based on such an anomalous situation. Because:

     

    1) Norway will reach its saturation point very quickly.

     

    2) Other countries will not have incentives like that.
    2 Apr, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    "The delaying of lease accounting is a stupid argument because it just delays todays income to a future date"

     

    At this stage, the last thing Musk wants is to show a profit because that can only be disappointing. Once you take that step from - to + in the operating statement, a different psychology takes hold. At that point, you are no longer a start-up. People start to ask questions about your > 2000 PE ratio and such.

     

    He will keep this from showing a profit as long as possible. He still has people treating it like a start-up even though the company is over 10 years old now. But Amazon has that beat. Anazon has to be the world's oldest start-up. They will soon have their third generation of workers.
    2 Apr, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "Stephen, what happens in Norway after they spend all that money and get to 50,000."

     

    Well @Tippydog, I think that Norway might just extend those EV tax breaks.

     

    It's just a hunch. Norway has the largest pension fund in the world, where they have been depositing all their oil profits. The purpose of the fund is to prepare for the day when the oil runs out.

     

    What helps them prepare better than electrifying the fleet?http://bit.ly/Oxo0bA

     

    As an aside, I don't usually say stuff about market prediction but I think now could be a really really bad time to be short TSLA. When papa bear comes out and says everyone should be rooting for Tesla because they help us defeat evil in the world -- a sea change has occurred.
    2 Apr, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (990) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee

     

    Norway is not going to reach saturation point. Tesla's in Norway are not being bought by enthusiasts or early adopters. They are being bought by regular upper middle class folks. And that is something Norway has a lot of.

     

    If you think the subsidies are going to subside, I have bad news for you. Not going to happen. After the first 50,000 EVs are sold, the government will raise taxes on EVs somewhat but it will never let it become an even playing field with Gasoline vehicles. The aim of the high taxes on ICE cars was to reduce gasoline consumption, why would they go back to encouraging it. This is a country that despite being one of the largest oil producers in the world sells gasoline at $10 a gallon. That $130,000 difference between a tesla and its ICE equivalent might become $75,000 at best. In a few years, everyone in Norway will know someone who drives a model S. Why pay more for a vehicle your family and friends will consider archaic and then pay $10 a gallon to fuel it. Besides most Norwegians lean left and that combined with the fact that the electric grid is 95% hydro powered means the model S in Norway truly is zero emissions.
    2 Apr, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    double E.

     

    Congratulations on Norway.

     

    Tesla should just stick to Norway. Thats where it works. Move to Norway, and cut the failing efforts elsewhere.
    2 Apr, 11:50 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (990) | Send Message
     
    What failing efforts would that be ? Tesla has shown the ability to generate 4000 sales per quarter for 3 quarters in North America. No other manufacturer sells $90k sedans at the same pace as tesla in NA. There will be a massive beat of 2014 guidance. So what exactly is the failure ?
    3 Apr, 01:48 AM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    Tippy. Wouldn't you want the US to follow in Norway's model? Clean renewable energy powering clean, quiet cars? I think this is where the money is moving forward. Norway is just ahead of the curve.
    3 Apr, 03:10 AM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Haha...keep dreaming Tippy. Tesla just does "incredible" in countries like Norway. They have to be satisfied with just doing "amazing" in the rest of the world.
    You bears are so funny..its like your brains just can't comprehend how an upstart like Tesla could up end the auto world so well.
    I see you scratching your heads like Neanderthals "Ughh big = better"..."Why can't big auto crush little Tesla? Me no understand"
    3 Apr, 03:30 AM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    tech,

     

    Customer orders at the end December were flat with September, if you back out the Model X. Flat customer orders, while supply is increasing month after month, with lead times inching down, is not consistent with the "production constrained" argument.

     

    Allocating a huge percentage of sales to a single small country, is not consistent with production constraint either.

     

    The 6 to 9 week of wait time in the U.S. is down from prior periods. This also shows that the production constraint has largely been caught up.

     

    At a recent event in Silicon Valley, Tesla was quoting 2 weeks to one month for the P 85. Thats shorter than its been.

     

    It will be interesting to see the March 31 backlog, and to then back out Model X reservations.
    3 Apr, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • Ecp54321
    , contributor
    Comments (182) | Send Message
     
    Many bears will spread FUD to make people think that. The truth is Tesla is supply constrained and will be for many years to come despite the making steps to ramp up production/supply as fast as they can.
    2 Apr, 12:22 PM Reply Like
  • Tales From The Future
    , contributor
    Comments (4048) | Send Message
     
    "although a government tax incentive has also helped to stoke demand."

     

    Well, that's putting it mildly. Compare for example neighbor Sweden with Norway, similar size and also a rich country (GDP PPP is a little lower, but Sweden even has double the population).

     

    How come so few EVs are sold in Sweden compared to Norway? Subsidies and incentives in my opinion.

     

    Norway is an outlier in Europe like CA in North America regarding EV demand (and these subsidies can only be held up because Norway exports a lot of oil and is one of the few countries with a budget surplus).
    2 Apr, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • jabobeast
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Tesla Motors Inc. (NASDAQ:TSLA) has really focused heavily on Norway as it expands its global operations. And with good reason: the Model S electric luxury sedan is a bargain compared to comparable gas burners in one of the world’s most environmentally progressive countries.

     

    Now some Norwegians are wondering if providing huge incentives for a car bought by high net worth individuals is really in keeping with the spirit of the carrots the government is dangling in front of consumers to lure them toward greener modes of personal motorized transportation.

     

    The Norwegian new site Budstikka published on Thursday a profile of the first 100 Model S owners in the country and found that their average annual income is 1.55 million Danish krone (about $285,500), or 82 percent above the approximately $157,000 median in the two municipalities that have the highest concentration of Tesla cars in the country.

     

    At the same time, these wealthy EV drivers enjoy breaks on levies the government imposes on vehicle purchases to the tune of about $135,000 for the Model S, which has a local starting base price of about $112,000. In other words, if the Model S had a gas engine, like comparable luxury cars, it would cost nearly $250,000 to own one in Norway.

     

    Electric vehicle owners not only are exempt from the hefty government taxes and fees on car purchases but also enjoy the legal use of bus lanes, free transport by ferry and a discount on the annual car tax. The economic incentives are set to expire in 2017 unless the government decides to extend them.
    2 Apr, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Tales From The Future
    , contributor
    Comments (4048) | Send Message
     
    "about $285,500"

     

    Robin Hood in reverse.
    2 Apr, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    TFTF
    This is a financial site and you are worried about the poor not being able to buy a Tesla. I think that is the worst complaint to date. The rich are funding a revolution in transportation. I say, let them.
    2 Apr, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • Tales From The Future
    , contributor
    Comments (4048) | Send Message
     
    Not at all, fact_checker. I'm against the poor subsidizing the rich, hence "Robin Hood in reverse".

     

    You want a revolution in transportation? Subsidize* public transportation like subways and trains, not a car with an ASP of $100k.

     

    _____
    * Not that I'm for subsidies in general, but at least subsidies for public/mass transport would make more sense from a rich-poor and environmental perspective.
    2 Apr, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    The ASP won't be $100k in 5 years. The price will come down as the technology matures and competition increases. That is pretty much the entire point of Tesla's existence.
    2 Apr, 03:13 PM Reply Like
  • tech01x
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    tftf,

     

    The U.S. Federal government and state governments also subsidize public transportation. However, people continue to refuse to use them in substantially higher numbers. Part of it is our unnaturally low gas prices last century which encouraged people to spread out and make suburbs that in turn reduce the effectiveness of public transportation or a least increases the costs dramatically.

     

    As for the credits, you can get all the consumer credits available to a Tesla Model S purchaser with a Nissan Leaf. Given the price of the Nissan Leaf, the percentage impact is far higher on the Nissan Leaf's purchase price. So various EVs compete for the consumer's dollars and each of the car manufacturers have a level playing field when it comes to EV consumer incentives. The fact that many of them refuse to participate or do so poorly does not mean that the consumer credits are for Tesla only or only for the rich. It is also natural for new technology adoption with its correspondingly higher initial price tag would find more traction with those have have higher net worth or incomes. That's a natural market force.
    2 Apr, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "I'm against the poor subsidizing the rich, hence "Robin Hood in reverse"."

     

    Ordinarily I would agree with you, TFTF, but here's the problem. The gasoline dystopia we live in is a big contributor to sea level rise, intense extreme weather, unbreathable city air, and trillions leaving our shores to fund palaces for ruling families and/or others who actively plot to kill us. This is not a subsidy for a damn music player.
    2 Apr, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    Its just a giant corporate ripoff. Norway got snookered. But like all government intervention, the pendulum swings...
    2 Apr, 11:51 PM Reply Like
  • fact_checker
    , contributor
    Comments (97) | Send Message
     
    Tippy - you have clearly never been to Norway and don't know what you are talking about. Norway got rich off selling their oil to the rest of us while they prepared for the future. Now they have huge amounts of clean energy and soon, clean cars. Norway is a ridiculously beautiful country and they intend to keep it that way.

     

    http://bit.ly/1sb97vX
    3 Apr, 03:18 AM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    fact__ checker,

     

    I've been to Norway many times. Done several large transactions there. They never intended this to be big giveaway for a muscle car. It worked out that way, and behind the scenes there is a lot of grumbling about it.

     

    The question is whether over time, the world really embraces more subsidies for big heavy fast cars for rich people. Its possible, but its not a great bet.

     

    The goal was to support inexpensive EVs, not muscle cars for millionaires. We will see how policy evolves.
    3 Apr, 09:36 AM Reply Like
  • Dave_M
    , contributor
    Comments (2610) | Send Message
     
    @Tippydog - "The goal was to support inexpensive EVs, not muscle cars for millionaires."

     

    The goal should be to support alternatively fueled vehicles that consumers will want to purchase. If they are crippled, inexpensive EVs, and nobody buys them, what's the point?

     

    The point of THAT would serve to prove the automakers should continue making gas powered cars . . .
    3 Apr, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @Ecp54321

     

    Hopefully Tesla will hurry up with their battery gigafactory so they can sell more than 1000 cars/month.

     

    Supply constrained at this production volume is pretty scary if I was a large long stock holder.

     

    I am not a TSLA bear, nor am I a TSLA Kool-Aid drinker.
    2 Apr, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Maybe the giga factory should be in Norway.
    2 Apr, 12:58 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    Agreed! Given Norway's tax incentives, the batteries should be cheaper than free.
    2 Apr, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Tippydog
    , contributor
    Comments (1796) | Send Message
     
    cparmerlee

     

    "Maybe the giga factory should be in Norway."

     

    Thats brilliant! Thats exactly where it should be. Lithium mountaintop removal mining in Norway.
    2 Apr, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    Tech update..TSLA.... Do not await the third day to make your trading sale. stop needs raising to 219.85 from 213.90 for those who are stuborn longs. Volume is bear market size... this is a bounce only not beginning of a new run.
    more later.....
    2 Apr, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    As in the DeLorean, Where E Musk is going "they don't need roads".....
    (Back to the Future)
    2 Apr, 02:28 PM Reply Like
  • Ronny Hugo
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    I find it hilarious that people compare crap BEVs with good BEVs, and mix and match demand for one as representative of the demand for the other.

     

    "peak model s"? Smog filled European cities will make even the most stubborn laizes-faire economies adopt Norwegian BEV tax incentives sooner or later. The popularity of ICEvs will be the only thing BEVs need to become popular. Tesla is just ahead of the curve in regards to making BEVs that are actually good.
    If smog filled cities and good BEVs isn't enough to make BEVs popular we can get a mirror right now and kiss our butts goodbye because our civilization is coming to an end.
    2 Apr, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @ Ronny,

     

    Given the concern about smog (I agree) then no EV should be crap as they all should improve the environment.

     

    The best solution is to drive less. The second best solution is to utilize a plug-in hybrid with a battery sized for the 40 miles/day that 90% of us drive.

     

    To carry another 1000 lbs of battery to replace 20 lbs of gas is highly inefficient (though we do need to improve the series hybrid engine efficiency).

     

    And since China is about 67% coal for electric power, the gas engine may actually be better for the environment at this point (at least for this country).

     

    Civilization, as well as Capitalism, is alive and well.
    2 Apr, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (3189) | Send Message
     
    Carrying around "another 1000 lbs of battery" is better than carrying around 1000 lbs of gasoline engine plus all the complex subsystems and fuel to go with it. You don't have any of the added complexity and maintenance costs. I don't understand why people seem to think that it's somehow "OK" or even "Better" to have all that extra complexity. Plus, you end up with a car like the Cadillac ELR that's a total disappointment as soon as the engine kicks in and you suddenly go from a silent electrical ride to a noisy 4-banger ride.
    2 Apr, 04:11 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Chip wrote: "To carry another 1000 lbs of battery to replace 20 lbs of gas is highly inefficient (though we do need to improve the series hybrid engine efficiency)."

     

    I'm not sure we do, actually. Efficiencies will happen naturally. But the best way to make a series hybrid more efficient is to get more range out of the batteries. I.E. Improving the Volt EV range to 40 from 30 is more than a 33% increase in efficiency. It would reduce the gas usage by much more than 33%. And this extended battery range will happen organically as battery technology improves.

     

    That is the ultimate fallacy of the giga factory. While a battery cost reduction helps Tesla's cost problem, there are no demonstrated battery technologies today that will get a 300-mile battery range for the cost of a regular family car, say $40,000. In other words, improvements in battery economics will actually help serial hybrids a lot more than they will help pure EVs.

     

    I agree that from a pure engineering elegance viewpoint a serial hybrid is messy. An EV is pure. But the economics will dictate otherwise for the next decade unless we get something like a five-fold increase in the cost of gas -- but even that would help serial hybrids more than pure EVs.
    2 Apr, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    chipdoctor.

     

    China might be majority coal now, but they're getting cleaner at a faster rate than we are. They started with less than 3GW of installed solar up to 2012, then they installed 12GW's in 2013, and are aiming for 14GW's this year.

     

    The thing with solar farms is that you don't need to mine/drill additional resources to produce the same amount of power, any new panels installed simply adds to existing capacity. So if the trend continues, China will have more installed solar power (translates to produces more solar power too) than Germany by the end of 2015. Germany had only 36GW installed so far.

     

    So the idea that hybrid's will be cleaner will be hogwash sooner rather than later.
    2 Apr, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    David write: "Carrying around "another 1000 lbs of battery" is better than carrying around 1000 lbs of gasoline engine plus all the complex subsystems and fuel to go with it. "

     

    Don't confuse serial hybrids with parallel hybrids. Serial hybrids are not very complex and they don't add 1000#. A small 2- or 3-cylinder engine will get the job done. The total package including generator and fuel could be under 300#

     

    Why? Because it is a heck of a lot cheaper than 7000 toothbrush batteries and you can refill the tank in 2 minutes at any of 100,000 gas stations .

     

    I look forward to a day when EVs meet the lifestyle and budget of the mainstream consumer. That is at least 4 years away functionally and 8 years away economically.
    2 Apr, 04:55 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    cparmerlee,

     

    The i3 has that small engine, and the result isn't exactly a bed of roses: http://bit.ly/1k0lU2V

     

    The volt's 4 cylinder range extender is sized appropriately, but has that heavy engine that you claim isn't needed. And that's to drive a car with only a 16kwh battery. Increase the battery size, and the gas extender will need to be bigger to drive it.

     

    Reducing the battery weight is the ultimate solution, not the added complexity of always carrying a gasoline generator.
    2 Apr, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • Renewable Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    What happens when the sun goes down? They fire up the old dirty coal power plants.
    2 Apr, 09:15 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Underdog wrote "Increase the battery size, and the gas extender will need to be bigger to drive it."

     

    No. That is simply wrong. The HP needed in the extender is only a function of how much power is needed to move the vehicle. It has nothing at all to do with the battery size. As long as the extender can deliver a little more than the AVERAGE HP needed to keep the vehicle moving, it is big enough. The choice of size is an engineering/marketing decision based on how long you want to run the extender, where it's peak HP lies, and whether or not you want to share that same drive system with larger vehicles later.

     

    And I don't see a big problem if the I3 delivers 34 MPG on gasoline after delivering 80 miles as an EV. Beats the heck out of: a) paying for a tow or b) having to plan your lifestyle around your car's limited range and inconvenient recharge options. If the Volt did that after 30 miles of EV running, that would be more of a problem, but with an 80 mile range, most people just won't use the extender that often to make the fuel consumption a critical issue. And if you DO use a vehicle that much for long range driving, you are totally screwed with a Tesla.
    2 Apr, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "The best solution is to drive less. The second best solution is to utilize a plug-in hybrid with a battery sized for the 40 miles/day that 90% of us drive."

     

    IMO, chipdoc, you conflate "less bad" with "good". If you find yourself on a road to Canada, but you really need to go to Mexico, just slowing down isn't going to cut it. You need to turn around.
    2 Apr, 09:46 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    renewable investor.

     

    "What happens when the sun goes down?" China's also the home to the largest hydro power plant in the world, and their wind farms are also growing nicely.

     

    Besides, look for Dan Fichana's comments about baseload power plants, especially coal baseload power. There's no "firing up". They've been there producing power all this time, as they're most efficient when operating continuously regardless of grid load.
    3 Apr, 04:40 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    cparmerlee,

     

    The point of i3 review that I linked to, wasn't about the efficiency of its motorcycle engine, but about the rattling noise it produces when it's turned on, and how it doesn't produce enough power to go uphill on a mountain. It's barely enough to drive at highway speeds on level ground. The Volt with it's larger engine does NOT have this problem, which simply proves that you'll need at least a 4 cyclinder engine.

     

    When going uphill, weight IS an issue, so your gas extender WILL need to be bigger if the battery size increases.
    3 Apr, 04:47 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    Hi arondaniel,

     

    I appreciate your opinion. Since driving less is the best way to solve the energy issue, I assume your less bad reference applies to the hybrid.

     

    While I do support that a home solar to EV is the best green solution, I question if this best solution for everyone on the planet (definitely is for those that can afford it).

     

    There have been numerous studies that support 90% of daily driving is 40 miles or less (and if I recall the GM/Nissan studies correctly, 98% is <100 miles).

     

    The 250 mile range Tesla S needs extra EV battery production and hauls around 1000 lbs of extra batteries for a range that will be used less than 2% of the time. This is a waste of energy.

     

    On top of that, Li-ion batteries self discharge. The larger the pack, the larger the self discharge. If the self discharge rate is 1%/day, then you need to add 1KWhr every day (using 85% charge efficiency) just to balance the self discharge of the battery. That's about 3 miles lost per day (>1000 mile/yr) for just having your car charged.
    3 Apr, 12:13 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @ Fan,

     

    The Volt may not be the best example. GM threw is an engine that they had (the 1.4L) and this really is not optimized (overkill).

     

    The series hybrid gas engine needs to replace energy at the consumption rate in which the battery equalizes the demand peaks.

     

    Per Tesla, the 20 KW High Power Charger provides 58 miles range/hour. Allowing for a very conservative 50% allowance (hills, passing, driving fast, etc) and you need 30KW power delivery.

     

    1 HP = 746 watts. To produce 30 KW you will need a 40 HP motor/generator (100 efficiency). This is roughly a 500CC (0.5L) 2-3 cylinder motorcycle style engine which weights < 100 lbs.

     

    I would rather rely on a gas engine/ gas station combination that a larger battery / Supercharger system. I do not need to worry where I drive, or if I get lost, as gas stations are everywhere.

     

    I also lose about 1000 lbs of battery, which provides faster acceleration, better handling and braking, and higher energy efficiency. I can also plug in my vehicle with 110V that's available everywhere, as I do not need high charge rates.

     

    I also reduce initial cost, at the slight extra expense of gas for the 2% of the time I need the extra range -- 2% of 12K annual miles is 240 miles, or about 6 gallons of gas ($25). FYI, 240 miles is less energy than the self discharge of the 85KWhr battery pack over a year.

     

    This solution would not require the immediate need of a gigafactory, and would benefit by the average 8% annual improvement in lithium-ion battery technology.

     

    This solution would provide green alternatives to the masses, at a price they can afford. This is the best way forward to improve our CO2 problem.
    3 Apr, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @Fan,

     

    Glad to see that solar production is picking up, though this will not solve the immediate transportation problem (that hybrids can address better).

     

    China will still need coal to power the overnight Tesla mega-chargers.

     

    Solar is great for supplementing daytime energy consumption and for reducing additional generation (usually coal or gas) needs.

     

    The best transportation solution remains that the consumer install solar panels on their house to charge their 40 mile range EV (about 15KWhr of production = 3KW of panels @ 5 hrs/day). To charge at night however, requires storage or an energy sharing arrangement with the utility.

     

    FYI, the GW numbers you mention sound impressive, until you realize the percentage of total energy usage. The USA consumes about 4 Trillion KWhr of electricity, or 4 * 10^12 * 10^3 = 4 * 10^15. 40 GW(hr) is 4*10^13 or 1% of USA's energy consumption. While is a improvement, it is not a number that suggests the near term replacement of coal/nat gas.
    3 Apr, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    chipdoctor,

     

    While I applaud your perspective from a different angle, it caused a huge error in your calculations.

     

    aerodynamic drag increases as a square of velocity, so going from 58mph to 65mph (highway speed) isn't going to take only 15% more power, it'll be more like 30%. Throw in the hills, and you'll need WAY more than that.

     

    As a real-life cross-check, the BMW i3's motorcycle engine was "optimized" for the exact role that you're thinking about (25kw 647cc ... ~33.5HP), and that engine could NOT produce enough electricity to get the car uphill. And that's for a car weighing "only" 2900 lbs. With gravity working against you going uphill, more weight = more power from the engine.

     

    As for the power generation, what's your source? The EIA shows only 11 Billion KWhr per day: http://1.usa.gov/MRWMnL

     

    10^3 difference. There must've been another mistake somewhere, because if we now take the same 40GW of capacity @ 5hrs /day, we'll get 200 GWhr / day, or 0.2 billion KWhr per day. So it's still small, but is now 2% instead of 1%.

     

    And you have to remember that it's all cumulative. If new capacity is added at the same rate (~20GW / year, without any new resource input), we'll be at 10% within 8 years.

     

    The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.
    3 Apr, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Underdog wrote: "The point of i3 review that I linked to, wasn't about the efficiency of its motorcycle engine, but about the rattling noise it produces when it's turned on, and how it doesn't produce enough power to go uphill on a mountain. It's barely enough to drive at highway speeds on level ground. The Volt with it's larger engine does NOT have this problem, which simply proves that you'll need at least a 4 cylinder engine."

     

    Regarding the noise, surely you will agree that is a simple engineering problem. Any engine can be made quiet if that is what marketing calls for.

     

    The bigger point is the energy flow from an extender. It only takes 10 or 15 horsepower -- maybe less than that -- to keep a car like the I3 moving at highway speed with moderate headwind and no intense grade changes. So it is a perfectly valid engineering design to put something like a 40 HP gas engine in a serial hybrid.

     

    The reasons why a company might choose something larger are

     

    1) The marketing people don't like the idea of running the gas engine half the time on a long trip

     

    2) with a smaller engine, you have to kick on the gas engine a little sooner, so that effectively negates part of the expensive battery capacity

     

    3) The bigger engine might be cheaper, depending on where else that engine can be used

     

    4) The bigger engine might be a better match for the generator you have available

     

    5) The overall efficiency might actually be better running a bigger engine for shorter times

     

    6) You might have a longer service life or longer maintenance intervals with a larger engine.

     

    7) You may want to use this same drive train essentially unchanged on a much bigger vehicle.

     

    There can be good arguments for a larger engine, but it most certainly is not necessary. Ford's 1L 3-cyl ecoboost is way overkill at 123 HP. That is 450# before you add on a generator. You could go with something much smaller than that.
    4 Apr, 12:34 AM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1552) | Send Message
     
    Underdog wrote: "Throw in the hills, and you'll need WAY more than that."

     

    No. What goes up must go down. You recover most of that energy on the downhiill slope.

     

    Underdog wrote: "i3's ... engine could NOT produce enough electricity to get the car uphill. "

     

    It doesn't have to. It is an electric drive. The extender just needs to be able to recharge the batteries. It doesn't have to propel the vehicle up the side of the mountain if there is still a charge in the batteries. This is simply a fine-tuning parameter to control exactly when the generator should switch on. And these cars have overrides. If the driver knows he is going to be doing heavy climbing, then he can kick on the generator early if he really wants to go screaming up the side of the mountain.

     

    What is hard to understand about that?
    4 Apr, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    cparmerlee.

     

    Crawling up the hill at 44mph isn't screaming up by any stretch of the imagination. The video reviewer started at 75mph, and lost 31mph by the time they summited. And if they started at 37mph, they still lost 17mph before reaching the top. That's clear proof that the generator couldn't provide enough watts to sufficiently power the electric motor.

     

    Starting the gas extender early in anticipation of a hill climb, although prudent, is not "convenient". And if the US variant of the i3 is any indication, you might not get the choice of when to start the extender either, which would inversely be convenient, but not prudent.

     

    I know you disagree, but I don't think the general public is willing to put up with hassles of an undersized range extender. I think they'd prefer a larger battery in place of that range extender.
    4 Apr, 03:23 AM Reply Like
  • Ronny Hugo
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    @chipdoctor
    "o carry another 1000 lbs of battery to replace 20 lbs of gas is highly inefficient"
    No. The electric motor is over 95% efficient, and the battery is extremely efficient as well. Removing the ICE part completely for 1000 lbs of batteries and 1 big electric motor instead of a small electric motor, is the most efficient car we can have. The only way to make it more efficient is to make it low and sleek like the Model S, with a long thin battery in the floor, and little aerodynamic drag. Aside from that, we can make the tires harder (and air suspension). Even charging from coal fired plants the BEV is more efficient and less polluting (the coal plant can have huge secondary and tertiary turbines, the mobile ICE can't). BEVs are also a necessary step in the renewable future that HAS to happen whether we want to or not, because fossil fuels stop being pulled out of the ground the minute you require more energy to get them up than you get from burning the fossil fuels. We can't do windmills BEFORE electric cars, we have to do the electric cars first, they are the egg, the renewable energy is the chicken.
    I don't know why I and others have to keep bringing this up. Stop listening to news article physics and soundbites and ask a physicist once and for all. The whole point of science is that you don't have to take my word for it, you can do the physics (math) yourself and verify it with experiments. But I bet someone already has (many, probably, even independently funded organizations as well).
    Learn to read science publications (general statement to the world, not just you).

     

    -RH.

     

    PS: From every engineering-standpoint, the hybrid is flawed. The only reason they ever design one is because the engineers are told to make a car for the cheapest hippie-market and then they can't have enough batteries in it for it to be useful, so they have to shrink the battery even more and put a small affordable (useless) Internal Combustion Engine in it. If they just designed the car with a bigger battery for the slightly higher up market, they could pay for all the tooling costs and development costs of the cheap model while making money on the expensive model.
    4 Apr, 09:47 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    Hi Fan,

     

    I think we are both using the same source, 11B KWHr/day is 4T KWhr annually (4001.5 B KWHr).

     

    For the solar calculations, I need you to use energy vs power ratings to see what, if any, errors exist. I do agree that solar to power hybrids is the best solution.

     

    I agree with you about Cd, though this is more complex that the simple V^2 formula suggests, especially at lower speeds. For simplicity, use the Tesla Range chart (link below) which states an 18% increase in energy consumption (going from 60 to 70 mph) instead of a calculated 36% V^2 increase.

     

    http://bit.ly/1fW6Uf6
    5 Apr, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    Hi Ronny,

     

    I think you need to spend 2X Joules before commenting.

     

    I read more materials that you can imagine. Your motor efficiency is not correct for a typical EV, and does not consider many other effects such as the 3 phase motor driver/inverter/battery columbic/chargers efficiencies.

     

    Please research this some more so we can have a constructive debate.

     

    P.S. Wind power generation has been around a bit longer than the Tesla EV. If you are a physicist, then please take a chemistry and electronics course for a complete understanding.
    5 Apr, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    chipdoctor,

     

    I take you that you still think a 30hp onboard generator is still sufficient for the job of extending a plug-in hybrid's range?

     

    If that's the case, allow me one more perspective. The i3 has a relatively tiny 3 gallon fuel tank to extend its range by only 80 miles. Most people seem to want ~300 miles of range. That would mean that you'll need at least a 7 gallon tank for your range extender. How safe is it to lug around 7 gallon of a flame accelerant every day regardless of whether or not you need it? With my leaf, I've never had to worry about whether or not an electrical short would start a fire that would sever a fuel line.
    6 Apr, 04:37 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    Hi Fan,

     

    I am also a fan of Diesel over gas, as its storage is more friendly.

     

    For the range extension, let's use your Leaf as the base vehicle, though supplemented by a Diesel generation (a.k.a. series hybrid). All the generator does is replace your plug in charger (though done at the 385VDC battery voltage to reduce loss).

     

    A gallon of Diesel has about 40 KWHr of energy content. With a Diesel engine 39% efficiency (easy at a single rpm) and a generator efficiency of 93% you net 15 KWhr of electric power for each gallon of Diesel.

     

    Your Leaf should have at least a 72 mile range for the 24 KWHr or 3 miles/KWhr. Each gallon of Diesel will provide 45 miles of range for your Leaf. I think a 4 gallon tank (180 miles) plus the 40 mile battery range (220 mile total) will be enough for most people.

     

    Per Tesla's Model S range char (and similar to your Leaf), the energy consumption at 65 mph is 333Whr/m (3 miles/KWhr). Hence, you will need 21.6 KWhr/hr (.333*65) energy replacement at 65 mph (assuming no battery assistance).

     

    30HP running for one hour is 22.4 KWhr, or 21.6KWHr with 96% generator efficiency, so it can work. I would size the motor a bit larger though (40-50 HP) just to make sure hills were not a problem.

     

    FYI, the electrolyte in most of the li-ion batteries are more flammable than Diesel.
    6 Apr, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • ioconnor
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Tesla produces about 2400 cars a month. Norwegians bought over half in March. Typically they buy 1/4 of all Teslas.

     

    Why are those Nordic states always leading the way for the rest of the world?
    2 Apr, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • Renewable Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Because they are economic power houses with forward thinking that have driven their economies to number one in the world since WWII.
    2 Apr, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    P.S The DeLorean also had gull-wing doors........
    2 Apr, 02:39 PM Reply Like
  • Joe E Coyotee
    , contributor
    Comments (242) | Send Message
     
    Bottom line is Tesla is growing , when they started they sold 2500 units then doubled to 5000 units then a year later sold over 20,000 units, on track to sell close to 35,000 units this year, and has set a goal for next year to sell 60,000 units, such a simple stock 101 easy long pick .

     

    The pent up demand world wide for a compelling Electric car has been building for over 30 years and finally some one is trying there hardest to supply a little bit of it. and doing the most outstanding job at achieving its goals.

     

    Thank you Tesla for all your hard work
    2 Apr, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • Adrian Manaila
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    The news are moving TSLA +4.50%. Looks like some people over here (where is Santos?) slightly misunderstood this piece of information.
    2 Apr, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • Ecp54321
    , contributor
    Comments (182) | Send Message
     
    To ill-Logical Thought and other demand doubters:
    The fact that Tesla further delayed their first deliveries to other popular markets (China, UK, Japan, HK, etc.) shows that they do not have any problem whatsoever in the foreseeable future of supply being greater than demand in the US and Europe. Also, delaying the Model X farther out shows that they do not believe supply will catch up to Model S demand anytime soon. If that were the case they'd push the Model X and the new markets (China, UK, Japan, HK, Australia, etc.). Until the Giga Factory is built, it is all tied to battery product. Likely even beyond the Giga Factory when the Model E comes out they will still likely be supply constrained and be thinking about more Giga Factories at that point.

     

    Despite increases in production this quarter, wait times in the US are still 6-8 weeks for top of the line P85+ models, 8 weeks for S85, and 12 weeks for S60s. How do I know this? Just go here:
    http://bit.ly/XInef6
    This is exactly what the wait times were 9 months ago in the US when production was 40-50% lower and the backlog was still being filled at that time in the US.
    2 Apr, 03:52 PM Reply Like
  • nickysg
    , contributor
    Comments (479) | Send Message
     
    Oh dear the same old boring Tesla shorts arrive yet again to make their dull negative comments on any article about Tesla.The over 6% rise yesterday in share price no doubt burnt another hole in their ever-emptying pockets.These rats should leave their sinking ship and leave the rest of us to have an informed debate about Tesla's prospects.
    2 Apr, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • Zebuf
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Norway is a small and odd market. The lack of taxes on EVs boost sales, no doubt. Demand may peak next quarter or next year or never - who cares. The number of cars sold in Norway is by any measure miniscule.

     

    A more interesting three-legged train of thought is this:
    1) The EV sales ratio in March in Norway was 20,3%! In Q1 it was 14,5%.
    The total for 2014 will most likely exeed 20%.
    This is an exponential increase from 5,5% in 2013 and 2,8% in 2012.
    2) China has recently waged a war on city smog.
    3) A very disturbing global climate report was published this week.

     

    Incentives or not, there will be a big change in consumer awareness and consumer behaviour. And apart from buying solar-panels for your roof or backyard, getting an EV is the best way to make a difference.
    When the US hits a 20% EV ratio, were talking 120.000 cars - per month!
    Going by Norwegian numbers, half of these would be Tesla's.
    Then add the rest of Europe and China into the equation.

     

    20% EVs is a reality in Norway - today!
    How many years will it take before the other markets catch up?

     

    That is the question.
    3 Apr, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • SFC Mohn
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    The Nordic Countries must have a better way of business. Seems to me if better incentives were in place more of those cars would be on the road here. Seems to me the man building the car has the answer and the rest of us are just guessing. Remember he's the one taking it to the bank even after all he has put into developing the auto and the infrastructure.
    3 Apr, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  • From an European point of view
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    Please , we are on a Financial site , so the debate sould not be : are you pro or con Tesla , or are you pro or con EV , BEV etc ... Even if these chats are very technically and .. philosophically brillant .
    The question remains this : is the TSLA stock fairly priced ?
    My - humble - answer is no , due to facts and figures .
    3 Apr, 07:28 AM Reply Like
  • Dave_M
    , contributor
    Comments (2610) | Send Message
     
    @European point of view - "The question remains this : is the TSLA stock fairly priced ?"

     

    Good point. But the real question is: "How can you make money on TSLA?".
    3 Apr, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Grevstad
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    One car, the Tesla may not depreciate in value, do to limited supply and great quality.
    3 Apr, 07:34 AM Reply Like
  • Doc's Trading
    , contributor
    Comments (594) | Send Message
     
    Technical update...TSLA... As of yesterday's 50% retracement of its decline....from 265 (down to 202) and the rise to 231 (50%) completes the rally. a .682 would reach to 240-242. Longs raise your stop to 224.90 from 222.90.

     

    Advise you now to Sell half position here!

     

    Sell next week expiration 240/242 (or 245) call spreads for a credit. Believe you will collect whole credit.
    3 Apr, 09:14 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|